1. This is an application for anticipatory bail moved by accused Nos.10 and 14 in Crime No.1678/CB/TSR/R of 2023 of Crime Branch Economic Offences Wing, Thrissur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution (`ADGP’ for short hereafter) appearing for the prosecution. Perused the relevant records.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471, r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) as well as under Section 13(1)(c)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988’) and under Section 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC (Amendment) Act, 2018’ by the accused persons.

4. There are 22 accused persons in this case, as per the report of the Investigating Officer. The allegation of the prosecution, as could be seen from the report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Thrissur, dated 18.11.2025 and the prosecution records, is that, accused Nos.1 to 3, the office bearers of the Karuvannur Service Co-operative Bank, after hatching conspiracy with the 2nd accused and the other accused persons, viz., accused Nos.4 to 20 and accused Nos.21 and 22, who are the wives of accused Nos.1 and 3 respectively, with intention of cheating the complainant and the Bank, falsely assured the complainant that they would arrange a loan to clear the liability pending in connection with the agreement to purchase properties that were owned by the wives of accused Nos.1 and 3, fraudulently mortgaged the properties with the aid of forged records and obtained Rs.3 crore as loan, as against Rs.1.25 Crore applied by the complainant, his wife and three other relatives. The specific case is that the complainant, his wife and three other relatives submitted five loan applications before the Karuvannur Service Cooperative Bank, requesting loan of Rs.25 lakh each. Out of which accused Nos.1 to 3 and other accused hatched conspiracy and neglected to process the loan application put in by the complainant. While acting upon the other four loan applications submitted for Rs.25 lakh each, accused Nos.1 to 22 fraudulently suppressed original loan applications and forged loan applications in their names showing the loan amount as Rs.50 lakh each instead of Rs.25 lakh each. Apart from that, accused Nos.1 to 3, without the knowledge or consent of a friend of the 1st accused and his wife along with whom he had studied, fraudulently created loan files after forging loan applications in their names also. Thereby six loans to the tune of Rs.50 lakh each were sanctioned and encashed by fraudulent means and thereby misappropriated Rs.3 crore by the accused. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos.1 to 3 were the staff members of the Bank, and accused Nos.4 to 20 were the Director Board Members of the Bank during the relevant period. During investigation, it has been revealed that the 21st accused, Smt.Jitha, W/o. Biju M.K. (1st accused) and the 22nd accused, Smt.Sreelatha, W/o.Jilse C.K. (3rd accused), who were the owners of 3.79 acres of landed property as per document No.2639/12, 2940/12 and 2641/12 situated in Kottanellur Village under Vadakkekara SRO, entered into a property sale agreement with the complainant on 31.12.2013 fixing the sale price of the landed property as Rs.1,38,000/- per cent, amounting to a total of Rs.5,23,02,000/- for the purchase of the entire property. For this, the complainant gave Rs.50 lakh as advance on the date of agreement. The complainant gave Rs.1 crore on 28.03.2014, Rs.1.5 crore on 22.07.2015 and Rs.1 crore on 21.10.2015 as partial payments towards the balance. During the time period of the sale agreement with the complainant, accused Nos.21 and 22 colluded with accused Nos.1 to 3 and with the connivance of accused Nos.4 to 20, who were the Director Board members of the Bank during that time, fraudulently created fake release order IMAGE on 05.03.2014, and registration of the properties was carried out at the Vadakkekkara SRO in the names of approximately 24 persons, covering a total extent of 1.73 acres out of the original 3.79 acres of landed property. For registering the remaining 2.06 acres in the name of the complainant, accused Nos.1 and 3 convinced the complainant that they would arrange loan from Karuvannur Cooperative Bank towards the balance amount. In this connection, the complainant submitted loan applications and connected documents including the voucher, which were signed in blank form as directed by the accused, for availing loan of Rs.25 lakh each, in his name and 4 of his relatives, amounting to a total of Rs.1.25 crores, and the said property was registered in the complainant’s name on 21.10.2015. However, the accused neglected to process the loan application of the complainant and unlawfully increased the loan amounts from Rs.25 lakh to Rs.50 lakh in the remaining 4 loan applications by forging the signatures of the applicants in the loan application, without their knowledge or consent. Additionally, the accused created two more fraudulent loans in the names of the friend of the 1st accused and his wife, and thereby generating six fake loan files of Rs.50 lakh each, totalling Rs.3 crore, all secured by pledging the same property. Out of this fraudulently availed amount of Rs.3 crores, Rs.2,17,32,101 was used to settle the existing loan liabilities of the property and the remaining balance was adjusted through BOD accounts and other deposits in the names of the relatives and associates of the accused. Through this scheme, the accused derived unjust enrichment, while causing substantial financial loss and liability to the bank.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have no role in the scam of Rs.3 crore involved in this crime. He also would submit that in Crime No.25/2022 as well as in Crime No.240/2021, registered in connection with misappropriation of amounts under the guise of loan, as per order in B.A.No.2039/2025 dated 20.05.2025 and as per order dated 17.03.2025 in B.A.No.2838/2025, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to bail.

6. While describing the genesis of the case, it is submitted by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 20 were officers of the Bank, and the properties that were mortgaged for the purpose of the disputed loans were owned by accused Nos. 21 and 22, who are the wives of accused Nos.1 and 3 respectively. According to him, earlier, by mortgaging the same property, 11 loans were availed from the Bank and the same were kept in arrears. By suppressing these facts, the accused fraudulently obtained release deed showing clearance of the liability, without closing the above 11 loans. Pursuant to that, a sale agreement was executed in between the complainant and accused Nos.21 and 22 on 31.12.2011 to sell the properties for a total consideration of Rs.5.23 crore, out of which Rs.4 crore was received as advance by instalments. Thereafter, as instructed by the defacto complainant, 1.73 acres of land were sold to 24 other persons after retaining 2.06 ares of property. In order to execute sale deed for the said sum, 5 loan applications were submitted by the defacto complainant and his relatives to the tune of Rs.25 lakh each. However, accused Nos.1 to 3 did not act upon the application submitted by the defacto complainant. While acting on the other four applications and also granting loan in the name of a friend of the 1st accused and his wife, the accused fraudulently created loan applications and files, each for Rs.50 lakh, and thereby obtained Rs.3 crore pecuniary advantage in this case. It is pointed out by the learned ADGP that altogether 21 cases were registered against and the petitioners have involvement in 15 cases, where crores of rupees from Karuvannur Cooperative Bank have been misappropriated. The crimes are also included in the report of the investigating officer and the same are as under:

                  1.       Cr. 165/CB/TSR/R/21

                  2.       Cr. 240/CB/TSR/21,

                  3.       Cr. 241/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  4.       Cr. 242/CB/TSR/21,

                  5.       Cr. 243/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  6.       Cr. 247/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  7.       Cr. 248/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  8.       Cr.249/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  9.       Cr. 252/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  10.     Cr. 253/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  11.     Cr. 254/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  12.     Cr. 302/CB/TSR/21,

                  13.     Cr, 313/CB/TSR/D/21,

                  14.     Cr. 18/CB/TSR/D/22,

                  15.     Cr. 25/CB/TSR/D/22,

                  16.     Cr. 29/CB/TSR/D/22,

                  17.     Cr. 30/CB/TSR/D/22

                  18.     Cr. 49/CB/TSR/R/22,

                  19.     Cr. 25/CB/TSR/R/24,

                  20.     Cr. 1322/CB/TSR/R/25

7. It is also submitted by the learned ADGP that all the loans illegally and fraudulently issued with the direct involvement of accused Nos.1 to 20, using their official positions based on the decisions taken by them as part of the conspiracy hatched between them, in collusion with accused Nos.21 and 22. The conduct of the accused had severely undermined the trust of the general public in the cooperative banking system across the State. Hence, granting bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.10 and 14 would be denial of natural justice to the lakhs of common shareholders/depositors, especially in the lower rung of the society, which would adversely affect their faith in the transparency of Co-operative sector as a whole. The learned ADGP would submit that although four of the eleven earlier loans availed using the misappropriated loan accounts have been closed, seven of those loans are still subsisting. According to the learned ADGP, going through the allegations herein, the allegations are very serious where custodial interrogation and recovery of materials, including investment of the money by the accused, are inevitable, otherwise the entire investigation would be spoiled. In such view of the matter, the anticipatory plea by the accused persons could not be allowed.

8. Going through the allegations as extracted herein above, the allegations are very serious. The case diary, along with the original applications filed by the five applicants, including the defacto complainant, seized by the police from the Society, along with the forged loan applications supplemented by way of forgery by accused Nos.1 to 20, do form part of the prosecution records. On perusal of the original applications filed and the forged applications, it could be seen that as alleged by the prosecution, the loans applied for are only Rs.25 lakh each, originally by the applicants. However, the accused persons, ignoring the said applications, created forged applications in the names of the applicants and also created fake and forged applications in the name of a friend of the 1st accused and his wife showing that they have applied for loans of Rs.50 lakh each and thereby availed loans of Rs.50 lakh each.

9. While considering the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3, 21 and 22, this Court considered the Gehans executed by the loanees produced as Annexures J to N therein and observed as under:

                  “It is true that, on perusal of Annexure J to N Gehans, the loan amounts sanctioned were shown as Rs.50 lakh each. In this connection, the very specific contention of the prosecution is that the signatures therein are that of the loan applicants, as admitted by the complainant and his wife before the Enforcement Directorate Officials, though the Gehans in the names of the friend of the 1st accused and his wife were also forged. According to the learned ADGP, going by the Gehans executed for the purpose of these loans, it could be seen that those are all prepared in printed forms. According to the learned ADGP, after getting signatures in the printed forms, the entries therein were substituted, so as to appear that Gehans were executed for Rs.50 lakh. According to the learned ADGP, going through the original applications put in by the applicants, one could easily understand that the loans originally applied by five persons for and behalf of the complainant were for Rs.25 lakh each, and thereafter, forged applications were substituted by the accused for availing loan to the tune of Rs.3 crore instead of Rs.1.25 crore originally applied by five persons. On perusal of the Gehans, and the forged applications, it is easy to understand that the contention raised by the learned ADGP is having force, as all the entries in the Gehans were (Annexures J to N) generated in printed forms after writing the contents thereof, including the loan amount as Rs.50 lakh. Regarding Annexures D and E statements given by the complainant and his wife to the Enforcement Directorate Officer are concerned, it could be seen that though they admitted the signatures in the documents, they never admitted availing of loans of Rs.50 lakh each. Their further version is that they have signed in the documents for availing loans and they are not aware of its contents. Therefore, what could be seen from the prosecution records is that the prosecution allegations are made out, prima facie, involving scam of Rs.3 crore. Apart from that the petitioners have involved in 21 crimes as already extracted herein above.”

10. I have no occasion to look into the case diaries in Crime Nos.240/2025 and 25/2025 to consider as to what is the allegation against the petitioners in those crimes and their role therein. The bail orders would not show anything in detail. Therefore, I am concerned specifically with the allegations as discussed herein above. Going by the nature of the allegations in this particular case, prima facie, forging of applications after substituting the applications filed by the complainant and 5 persons and the forgery of the application in the name of the friend and wife of the 1st accused for availing a total sum of Rs.3 crore could be found, prima facie, and it could be gathered that the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.10 and 14, who were also sanctioned the loan pursuant to the conspiracy hatched between the accused persons, since they are also members of the Director Board, who sanctioned the loans which resulted in misappropriation of Rs.3 Crore.  Therefore, anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioners as the same would impede the investigation. Therefore, arrest, custodial interrogation of the petitioners and investigation at their instance regarding the matter of investment of the money  and  its  recovery  are  necessary,  to  accomplish  a  meaningful investigation and successful prosecution. In such a case, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners would impede the investigation in the matter of collecting crucial materials, after questioning the accused in custody. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

11. In the result, this petition is found to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed.

                  The petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and to co-operate with the investigation, failing which the Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed as per law, without fail.